"I deeply oppose the things that Safe Schools do in my own fevered imagination, and the similarly fevered imaginations of my colleagues."

However, at least we have a better idea of what the battlelines are going to be.

Labor laid out its plan via leader Bill Shorten's address at the National Press Club on Tuesday, in which he basically said "that stuff that Labor have traditionally been in favour of but haven't actually done much to support over the last few years? That."

The boldest move was supporting a goal of full employment - a term that fell out of vogue around the time that the government of Paul Keating floated the dollar, deregulated our markets and went "eh, tying ourselves to the terrifying vagaries of the international economy should be fine".

(And what a cool thing that was for Australians! After all, remember those dark days in the '80s when people on a working class wage could still afford a house and send their kids to university? Thank heavens we've moved on from that national nightmare!)

That "united" bit is especially telling, since Shorten was quick to remind everyone "The prime minister's betrayals on climate change, marriage equality, the republic and Safe Schools diminish him – and they diminish us all."

And that's when the government decided it was an excellent time to immediately fight over the whole Safe Schools program again.

Nah, just kidding! They threw more tantrums and demanded an immediate review of the program.

You know, again.

When MPs Attack!

Nationals MP George Christensen wasn't about to accept the opinion of some egghead with a fancy degree and extensive experience in the educational sector, declaring that he "will be calling for the program either to be axed outright, or the funding to be suspended pending a full blown parliamentary inquiry." He also used the cover of parliamentary privilege to accuse Professor Louden of being a "paedophilia advocate". Which is… what's the opposite of "praiseworthy and smart"?

So, in other words, the conservative wing of the Coalition is going to keep demanding review after review until one discovers stuff that conforms to their weird fantasies about secret homosexual cabals attempting to destroy Australia, or something.

Oh, the lead up to that plebiscite is going to be a hoot!

Liberals Against Capitalism?

While this was going on Malcolm Turnbull was laying out part of his election plan with the surprise announcement that he'll adopt the "effects test" to prevent large companies from pursuing strategies with the "purpose, effect or likely effect" of reducing competition - which puts the low-regulation, free-market party in direct opposition with the operation of the unregulated free market, surely?

The intent is to help small business operate in the face of bigger competitors. However, it also puts the Coalition at odds with the big corporate players that tend to support the party - not least through donations - which seems like an interesting decision at this point.

Even the reliably pro-Liberal Business Council were cranky about it, with president Catherine Livingstone declaring "If Australia wants to have an innovation-driven economy, this is poor policy,"

And to be clear: it's not that the legislation is even a bad idea. It's just weird to see the Coalition seek to disadvantage big business.

And it was ostensibly in this excellent spirit that the government introduced the policy of "no jab, no pay" - a system by which people lose welfare benefits if their children are not vaccinated. Except… well, there are a few problems.

One is that the vast majority of parents with unvaccinated kids are not avoiding it because of principle, but for a much more mundane reason: poverty.

Even when Medicare covers vaccinations, getting kids to a doctor is not necessarily straightforward when time, transport and access to services are factors. Indeed, the University of Adelaide concluded that only one in six unvaccinated children are jab-free because their parents believe in anti-vax conspiracy horseshit.

That's because the system relies on accurate and timely information being entered into a database by individual doctors and nurses, who obviously have plenty of time on their hands to meticulously ensure full and accurate entry of data and are never going to be completely run off their feet, much less distracted by emergencies.

Also, until very recently the register didn't record anyone's immunisations after age seven, meaning that anyone that couldn't brandish paperwork demonstrating their teenage child had been immunised had the choice of missing payments or getting their kids to re-vaccinate - which isn't especially dangerous, but is definitely wasteful.

And not that one would want to speculate as to the real motivations behind this policy - perish the thought! - but given that the government has been trumpeting the $500 million it's saving on welfare payments this looks suspiciously like punitive action against welfare recipients rather than a keen interest in science-based medicine.